VENUGOPAL Vs. ANEESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered holding that it is only a servant of Government of Kerala, who is not below the rank of Deputy Collector, who can be appointed as administrator in terms of S. 14 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, for short, the 'G.D. Act' and that the Legislature has made specific prescription in identifying the field of choice from which the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee could appoint the administrator. One review petition is by the third respondent in the Writ Petition who was held to be not a servant of Government of Kerala and who is not one who can be held to be in the rank of Deputy Collector in the service of the Government of Kerala. The other is instituted with leave, by an officer in the Postal Department of the central Government, who pleads that the phrase "officer of Government" in S. 14 of the G.D. Act includes an officer of Central Government and therefore, the decision on the Writ Petition confining the field of choice to servants of Government of Kerala needs to be reviewed. We have heard respective learned senior counsel for the review petitioners, the learned counsel for the private respondent (writ petitioner), the Senior Government Pleader and the standing counsel for the Guruvayur Devaswom.

(2.) Relying on Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal, 1964 AIR(SC) 254, Divya Prakash v. Kultar Chand Rana, 1975 AIR(SC) 1067, State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, 1984 AIR(SC) 161 and Biharilal Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dobray, 1984 AIR(SC) 385, it was argued by Senior Advocate O.V. Radhakrishnan that the phrase "officer of Government" has been erroneously understood by this Court while interpreting S. 14(1) of the G.D. Act. Further, making reference to the National Forest Policy, 1988 Resolution, he argued that the activities of the establishment Kerala Forest Research institute, where the third respondent in the Writ Petition is employed, are essentially connected to duties and responsibilities of the State Government and that Institute which is an institution under the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment is to be treated as parts of governmental function and therefore, when it was shown that the said incumbent was drawing pay in a scale above that of the scale of pay of Deputy Collector, there was no reason to hold that he is not an officer of Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector for the purpose of S. 14(1) of the G.D. Act. Elucidating on this, reference was made to judgment dated 6th July 2011 - T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 7 SCC 338 , to point out that it has been declared by the Apex Court that National Forest Policy, 1988 which lays down far-reaching principles must be taken as the road map to ecological protection and improvement under the forest and environmental laws referred to in that precedent. Making reference to Pashupati Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain, 1984 AIR(SC) 399 , it was argued that when expressions "Government" and "officer of Government" are not defined, the provisions of the General Clauses Act would apply and "Government" or "the Government" shall include both the Central Government and any State Government. Reference was made to Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1989 AIR(SC) 1367 and Madhukar G.E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani, 1976 AIR(SC) 2283 to argue that the concept of "officer under Government" has to be understood in a wider perspective. Hari Nandan Sharan Bhatnaqar v. S.N. Dixit, 1970 AIR(SC) 40 was referred to, to point out that all officials working in the same scale of pay in a department, although holding posts with different designations, shall be deemed to be holding posts in the same grade, because their rank in the same department will be the same and equal to one another. N.C. Dalwadi v. State of Gujarat, 1987 AIR(SC) 1933 was also referred to, in the context of the question as to what is rank and grade. It was also argued that the finding in the judgment sought to be reviewed that such a litigation could be entertained at the instance of a devotee of Guruvayur temple, is not sustainable because, the matter relates to service and appointment and cannot be agitated in the Public interest Litigation regime.

(3.) Senior Advocate N.N. Sugunapalan argued that the word "the" not being prefixed to "Government" in S. 14(1) of the G.D. Act, the field of choice does not get confined to servants of the Government of Kerala and the servants of the Central Government would also fall within the field of choice. Reference was made to the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the law stated in Rampratap v. Dominion of India, 1953 AIR(Bom) 170 and Assistant Director. C.I. v. Hamam Chand, 1979 AIR(J&K) 33 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejmohammed Hussainkhan Pathan v. V.J. Raghuvanshi, 1993 AIR(SC) 365 .